Literature DB >> 16435075

Patient variables impact lumbar spine dual energy X-ray absorptiometry precision.

R D Blank1, D G Malone, R C Christian, N L Vallarta-Ast, D C Krueger, M K Drezner, N C Binkley, K E Hansen.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Changes in bone mineral density are used to monitor osteoporosis therapy. To determine whether a change in bone mass is clinically significant, the precision of bone mineral density measurements must be known.
METHODS: We therefore measured the impact of vertebral body exclusion on dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) precision. At one university and one Veterans Affairs DXA center, three radiology technologists each scanned 30 participants twice, with repositioning between scans, to estimate DXA precision. Three International Society for Clinical Densitometry-certified physicians reviewed all lumbar spinal scans to note the presence of focal structural defects. We calculated precision for subsets of vertebrae, and for virtual samples of patients with and without physician-identified vertebral focal structural defects. We graphed the reciprocal of least significant change versus bone area to determine the dependence of precision on interpreted scan area.
RESULTS: Within each sample, greater interpretable bone area improved precision. The contribution of interpreted bone area to precision differed among the samples, ranging from 57 to 94%. Greater population bone mineral density heterogeneity and presence of focal structural defects each decreased precision.
CONCLUSION: All bone densitometry centers must determine precision using a sample representative of their served populations. Failure to do so may lead to incorrect determination of least significant change. Population heterogeneity, vertebral body exclusion and presence of focal structural defects each decreases precision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16435075     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-005-0050-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  21 in total

Review 1.  Technical principles of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  G M Blake; I Fogelman
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 4.446

2.  Age-related decrements in bone mineral density in women over 65.

Authors:  P Steiger; S R Cummings; D M Black; N E Spencer; H K Genant
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Interobserver reproducibility of criteria for vertebral body exclusion.

Authors:  Karen E Hansen; Neil Binkley; Rose Christian; Nellie Vallarta-Ast; Diane Krueger; Marc K Drezner; Robert D Blank
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2004-11-29       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: synopsis of a WHO report. WHO Study Group.

Authors:  J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Noninvasive assessment of bone mineral and structure: state of the art.

Authors:  H K Genant; K Engelke; T Fuerst; C C Glüer; S Grampp; S T Harris; M Jergas; T Lang; Y Lu; S Majumdar; A Mathur; M Takada
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Effect of osteoarthritis in the lumbar spine and hip on bone mineral density and diagnosis of osteoporosis in elderly men and women.

Authors:  G Liu; M Peacock; O Eilam; G Dorulla; E Braunstein; C C Johnston
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Factors associated with the lumbar spine and proximal femur bone mineral density in older men.

Authors:  Jane A Cauley; Robin L Fullman; Katie L Stone; Joseph M Zmuda; Douglas C Bauer; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Kristine Ensrud; Edith M C Lau; Eric S Orwoll
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-05-11       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Risk of hip fracture according to the World Health Organization criteria for osteopenia and osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; O Johnell; A Oden; B Jonsson; C De Laet; A Dawson
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.398

9.  Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  D Marshall; O Johnell; H Wedel
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-05-18

10.  Relationship between changes in bone mineral density and vertebral fracture risk associated with risedronate: greater increases in bone mineral density do not relate to greater decreases in fracture risk.

Authors:  Nelson B Watts; Cyrus Cooper; Robert Lindsay; Richard Eastell; Michael D Manhart; Ian P Barton; Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa; Jonathan D Adachi
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.963

View more
  4 in total

1.  Increasing fasting glucose and fasting insulin associated with elevated bone mineral density-evidence from cross-sectional and MR studies.

Authors:  H Zhou; C Li; W Song; M Wei; Y Cui; Q Huang; Q Wang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Bone physiology, disease and treatment: towards disease system analysis in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Teun M Post; Serge C L M Cremers; Thomas Kerbusch; Meindert Danhof
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Could radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry (REMS) overcome the overestimation in BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the lumbar spine?

Authors:  Carla Caffarelli; Maria Dea Tomai Pitinca; Antonella Al Refaie; Michela De Vita; Simone Catapano; Stefano Gonnelli
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 4.  The clinical utility of bone marker measurements in osteoporosis.

Authors:  Gillian Wheater; Mohsen Elshahaly; Stephen P Tuck; Harish K Datta; Jacob M van Laar
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 5.531

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.